>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jun 10 21:00:50 1999
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id VAA11246
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:00:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (13962 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
via sendmail with P:stdio/D:aliasinclude/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp
(sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for list-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:54:10 -0400 (EDT)
(Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
Received: from bilbo.dso.net([206.16.77.10]) (13642 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
(sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:54:08 -0400 (EDT)
(Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
Received: from we-24-30-109-61.we.mediaone.net (we-24-30-109-61.we.mediaone.net
[24.30.109.61])
by bilbo.dso.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA13356;
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:48:30 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh)
To: Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IFWP] Re: [IDNO:250] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ICANN Commentary (Mike Roberts, David
Post)]
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:45:54 GMT
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: R
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) writes
>What Mr Roberts fails to mention is that the INTERIM board has no
>authority to be making MANY of the decisions it has been making under
>the white paper and indeed its own charter.
But also the U.S. govt under the White paper has outlined what
ICANN can do and thus has created ICANN in violation of the
Government Corporate Control Act.
>This boards primary goal was supposed to be getting an ELECTED board
>in place, and from comments from Ms Dyson, it looks like one more year
>till then. I blame this delay on ICANN itself, they have failed to
>take the steps that would of led to an open ICANN membership, and
>intentionally delayed the creation of an Initial Board. They use the
>delay as a means of justifying their taking actions beyond the scope
>of their charter.
But membership or election doesn't change the fact that ICANN is
being created without any oversight mechanisms that take into
account the great power and control that the U.S. governemnt is
trying to pass over to ICANN in opposition to what it is
allowed to do.
[
>>On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:33:54 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>Since ICANN and ISOC bashing seems to be a major topic on this list,=20
>>here's some material to counterbalance:
>
>>----- Forwarded message from "vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
>
>>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:55:11 -0400
>>From: "vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: ICANN Commentary (Mike Roberts, David Post)
>>To: "ISOC Members Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: ISOC Members Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>I thought this exchange was relevant to ISOC members.
>
>>Vint Cerf
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------
>
>
>>From: Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Commentary on June 5 Essay re ICANN
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>>>Commentary on Professor David Post's Essay of June 5 Concerning ICANN
>
>>>As a member of the American university community for more than thirty=20
>>>years, I have the utmost respect for its standards of open inquiry, but=20
>>>I find myself in strong disagreement with the premises, the asserted=20
>>>facts and the logic of Professor Post's recent essay on ICANN, which=20
>>>opens with the statement, "...my goal here is just to suggest that=20
>>>notwithstanding the government's (and ICANN's) protestations to the=20
>>>contrary, this is about nothing less than Internet governance writ=20
>>>large."=20
>
>>>I definitely do protest to the contrary; the facts do not support this=20
>>>conclusion. The truth of the current situation is that ICANN is pursuing=
=20
>>>its work program as spelled out in the Government's White Paper on the=20
>>
>>>Management of Internet Names and Addresses and in the Department of=20
Hence the U.S. government has in fact created ICANN in violation
of the laws allowing it to do so!
>>>Commerce's Memorandum of Understanding/Joint Project Agreement with=20
>>>ICANN that was executed last November. The tasks set forth therein=20
>>>include (extract from the contract):
>
Under the communications act of 1934 the U.S. government is obligated
to regulate the communications medium in the U.S. and hence the
Internet.
>>>a. Establishment of policy for and direction of the allocation of IP=20
>>>number blocks;=20
>
>>>b. Oversight of the operation of the authoritative root server system;=20
>
>>>c. Oversight of the policy for determining the circumstances under which=
=20
>>>new top level domains would be added to the root system;=20
>
>>>d. Coordination of the assignment of other Internet technical parameters=
=20
>>>as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; and=20
>
>>>e. Other activities necessary to coordinate the specified DNS management=
=20
>>>functions, as agreed by the Parties."
>
(...)
Ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
